We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Daar was ten minste twee keer dat die VSA sy gebied uitgebrei het deur dit direk te koop - Louisiana+ van Frans en Alaska van Russe.
Die Louisiana -aankoop was die verkryging deur die Verenigde State van Amerika van 2 140 000 km2 (828 000 vierkante myl) van Frankryk se aanspraak op die gebied van Louisiana in 1803. Die VSA betaal 60 miljoen frank ($ 11,250,000) plus kansellasie van skuld ter waarde van 18 miljoen frank ($ 3,750,000), vir 'n totale bedrag van 15 miljoen dollar (minder as 3 sent per akker) vir die Louisiana -gebied ($ 233 miljoen in 2011 dollar, minder as 42 sent per hektaar).
Alaska Aankoop: Die onderhandelinge is afgesluit na 'n sessie deurnag met die ondertekening van die verdrag om 04:00 op 30 Maart 1867, met die koopprys op $ 7,2 miljoen, of ongeveer 2 sent per hektaar ($ 4,74/km2).
Terwyl die historiese nie-monetêre redes vir die transaksies reeds op History.SE bespreek is, was daar natuurlik ook 'n finansiële kant.
Elke transaksie behels dat die koper en die verkoper op 'n manier besluit oor die waarde wat die item vir hulle inhou.
Vraag: Wat was presies die proses en die logika/algoritme waarmee beide die Russiese, die Franse en die Amerikaanse regering gekom het tot die waardasies hierbo aangehaal?
Die antwoord moet na historiese dokumente verwys, nie net raaiskote nie.
Jy dink nie meer daaraan nie.
In albei gevalle wou ons grond hê, hulle wou geld hê. Die bespreking was 'n onderhandeling soos enige ander - hoeveel / hoeveel geld / grond kan ons onttrek voordat die ander party wegstap?
Dit onderhandel, suiwer en eenvoudig. Ek twyfel of daar enigsins ontleding gedoen is, behalwe "Kan ons dit bekostig?" en "Lyk dit na 'n goeie deal?"
Ons praat hier oor die 1800's, nie dieselfde gesofistikeerde vaste- en finansieringsregime wat ons nou het nie. Ek sê nie dat die mense in die 1800's dom was nie - ek sê net: moenie moderne idees oor finansies en vaste eiendom toepas op 'n sagte ou spel nie.
Daarbenewens word die waardasie van vaste eiendom, selfs vandag, om twee redes gedoen:
- Om 'n verbandlener te help weet wat 'n redelike lening op 'n eiendom sou wees (die meeste banke leen nie meer as 95% van die waarde van 'n eiendom nie)
- Om regerings te help om uit te vind hoeveel eiendomsbelasting dit gaan kos.
Vir 'n regering wat eiendom verkry, is geen van die situasies van toepassing nie, dus is dit nie nodig om 'n werklike waarde toe te ken nie. Dus, weer, dit kom eintlik neer op "Hoeveel kan ons kry vir so min as moontlik gee."
Die oorspronklike aanbod was $ 10 miljoen vir New Orleans, plus "Oos- en Wes -Florida" (basies Florida plus die kusstreke van Alabama en Mississippi. Die Franse, wat nie 'n duidelike titel van Florida gehad het nie, het New Orleans plus die res van Louisiana aangebied , wat hulle wel 'n beter titel gehad het, vir $ 15 miljoen in plaas daarvan.
Van hierdie stad New Orleans was die maklikste om te waardeer. Dit het 'n gevestigde bevolking, met bekende syfers vir jaarlikse handel, belastinginkomste, ens. Gegewe die strategiese belangrikheid daarvan by die monding van die Mississippirivier, was die Amerikaners waarskynlik bereid om iets ekstra te betaal, bo die waarde van 'n ekwivalente hawe elders.
Kom ons sê ter wille van die argument dat New Orleans X miljoen werd was, wat beteken dat Florida $ 10-X miljoen werd was. Dan sou die res van "Louisiana" (ex New Orleans) $ 15-miljoen werd wees.
Kom ons sê X = 5, dus $ 10 miljoen vir die res van Louisiana. Daar is net minder as 1 miljoen vierkante kilometer in die gebied (naby genoeg vir ons doeleindes), dus kos elke vierkante myl net meer as $ 10.
Daar is 640 hektaar per vierkante myl. Ek onthou dat ek uit 'n geskiedenisboek op laerskool gelees het dat goeie landbougrond in 'n ontwikkelde gebied in koloniale tye $ 1 akker kos. Selfs as dit nie presies korrek is nie, kan sulke landbougrond op dieselfde manier waardeer word.
'Louisiana' kos miskien $ 10/640 hektaar of iets soos 1,7 sent per akker vir weliswaar 'n 'gryp' grond van wisselende kwaliteit. In vergelyking met $ 1 per hektaar, sou dit soos 'n winskopie lyk.
Dit is hoe dit vir die koper sou lyk. Die verkoper, Napoleon, sou waarskynlik sê: "Ek het $ 15 miljoen nodig. Wat kan ek verkoop om dit in te samel? Hmmm ... Louisiana kan die truuk doen."
Alaska was anders as Louisiana (laasgenoemde strek oor dieselfde LATITUDES as die res van die Verenigde State. Maar Alaska is 'Seward's Icebox' genoem, en die argument was dat dit 'te koud' was (gebaseer op die tegnologie van die tyd) Maar die teenargumente is dat 1) tegnologie verander, en ten goede, en 2) GEDEELTE van Alaska is bruikbaar en maak deel uit van die deel wat nie is nie.
In albei gevalle was daar 'n land wat geld nodig gehad het, wat 'n groot hoeveelheid grond oor 'n oseaan gehad het, wat moeilik was om te bestuur, met 'n baie nader land aan genoemde grond wat baie geld het en grond wou hê. In albei gevalle was die lande in 'n posisie dat die poging om hierdie afgeleë gebiede te verdedig veel te veel koste sou kos en waarskynlik sou misluk as 'n land 'n redelike poging sou doen om binne te val.
Die waarde van die grond was slegs 'n deel van die vergelyking, maar in beide gevalle was dit 'n geringe in vergelyking met ander faktore. Die besluit oor die finale prys was 'n onderhandeling wat begin by die werklike waarde van die grond, dan trek X af omdat hy desperaat is vir geld, en trek Y af deur slegs een koper te hê, en trek Z af as gevolg van die risiko om die besit van die grond te behou. Frankryk en Rusland het regtig niks om na die tafel te bring om 'n beter prys te kry nie.
Noordwestelike verordeninge
Ons redakteurs gaan na wat u ingedien het, en bepaal of hulle die artikel moet hersien.
Noordwestelike verordeninge, ook genoem Ordonnansies van 1784, 1785 en 1787, verskeie verordeninge wat deur die Amerikaanse kongres uitgevaardig is met die doel om ordelike en billike prosedures vir die vestiging en politieke inlywing van die Noordwestelike gebied vas te stel - dit wil sê die deel van die Amerikaanse grens wes van Pennsylvania, noord van die Ohio -rivier, oos van die Mississippirivier, en suid van die Great Lakes is dit gewoonlik die gebied wat vandag bekend staan as die Amerikaanse Midde -Weste.
Tot ongeveer 1780 is die lande van die Noordwes -gebied geëis deur verskeie bestaande state, waaronder New York en Virginia. Dié state het hul territoriale besittings gou aan die sentrale regering afgestaan (met die uitsondering van Connecticut, wat sy aanspraak op die Westelike Reserwe langs die suidelike oewer van die Erie -meer in die noordooste van Ohio behou het), en teen die tyd dat die Amerikaanse Revolusie geëindig het In 1783 was spesifieke maatreëls nodig om die vestiging en verdeling van die Noordwestelike gebied te lei.
Die Ordonnansie van 1784, wat deur Thomas Jefferson opgestel is en deur die Kongres (23 April 1784) aangeneem is, verdeel die gebied in 'n handjievol selfregerende distrikte. Dit het bepaal dat elke distrik een verteenwoordiger na die kongres kan stuur nadat dit 'n bevolking van 20 000 bereik het, en dit sou in aanmerking kom vir staatskaping as sy bevolking gelyk was aan die van die minste bevolkte bestaande staat. (Hierdie verordening is vervang deur die Ordonnansie van 1787.)
Die Ordonnansie van 1785 het voorsiening gemaak vir die wetenskaplike opmeting van die grondgebied en 'n sistematiese onderverdeling daarvan. Grond sou onderverdeel word volgens 'n reghoekige roosterstelsel. Die basiese eenheid vir grondtoelae was die township, wat 'n vierkante oppervlakte was aan elke kant. 'N Gemeente kan dan onderverdeel word in 'n aantal reghoekige pakkies grond wat individueel besit word.
Die landmeters ... sal die genoemde gebied verdeel in townships van 6 myl vierkantig, deur lyne wat noord en suid loop, en ander wat dit reghoekig kruis, so na as moontlik, tensy waar die grense van laat Indiese aankope kan lei dieselfde onuitvoerbaar, en dan sal hulle nie verder van hierdie reël afwyk as wat die spesifieke omstandighede mag vereis nie ...
Die eerste lyn wat soos voorheen noord en suid loop, begin op die rivier Ohio, op 'n punt wat noordwaarts gevind moet word vanaf die westelike einde van 'n lyn wat as die suidelike grens van die staat Pennsylvania gelei is en die eerste lyn, oos en wes, begin op dieselfde punt en strek oor die hele gebied ... met nommer 1 en die reekse sal onderskei word deur hul progressiewe getalle na die weste, die eerste reeks, wat strek van die Ohio tot by die Erie -meer, gemerk as nommer 1.
Die lyne moet gemeet word met 'n ketting, duidelik gemerk deur kappies aan die bome en presies beskryf op 'n plat, waarna die landmeter op sy regte afstande alle myne, soutbronne, soutlekke en meulstoele waarneem. tot sy kennis sal kom en alle waterlope, berge en ander merkwaardige en permanente dinge waaroor sulke lyne sal verbygaan, asook die kwaliteit van die lande.
Die plek van die townships word onderskeidelik gemerk deur onderverdelings in baie vierkante kilometer, of 640 hektaar, in dieselfde rigting as die eksterne lyne, en genommer van 1 tot 36, en begin altyd met die daaropvolgende reeks lotte met die nommer langs die waarmee die voorafgaande een gesluit het ...
Die minimum grondverkope was 640 hektaar groot, en die minimum prys per hektaar was $ 1. (Die kongres het gehoop om die tesourie weer op te vul deur grondverkope in hierdie streek, maar die vereiste van $ 640 kontant het baie potensiële kopers uitgeskakel.) Een afdeling in elke gemeente sou vir 'n skool opsygesit word. Hierdie prosedures het tot die Homestead Act van 1862 die basis van die Amerikaanse openbare grondbeleid gevorm.
Die Noordwes -verordening van 1787, die belangrikste van die drie wette, het die grondslag gelê vir die regering van die Noordwes -gebied en vir die toelating van sy samestellende dele as state tot die unie. Ingevolge hierdie verordening sou elke distrik bestuur word deur 'n goewerneur en regters wat deur die kongres aangestel is totdat dit 'n bevolking van 5000 volwasse vrye manne bereik het, op watter tydstip dit 'n gebied sou word en sy eie verteenwoordigende wetgewer kon vorm. Die Noordwestelike gebied moet uiteindelik uit ten minste drie en maksimum vyf state bestaan, en 'n individuele gebied kan tot die staat toegelaat word in die unie nadat 'n bevolking van 60 000 bereik is. Ingevolge die verordening is slawerny vir ewig verbied uit die gebiede van die noordwestelike gebied, godsdiensvryheid en ander burgerlike vryhede is gewaarborg, die inwonende Indiërs is ordentlike behandeling beloof, en daar is voorsiening gemaak vir opvoeding.
Godsdiens, sedelikheid en kennis wat nodig is vir goeie regering en die geluk van die mensdom, skole en opvoedingsmiddele, sal vir ewig aangemoedig word. Die uiterste goeie trou sal altyd teenoor die Indiane in ag geneem word; hulle grond en eiendom sal nooit van hulle ontneem word sonder hul toestemming nie en in hul eiendom, regte en vryheid sal hulle nooit binnegedring of versteur word nie, tensy dit in regverdige en wettige oorloë deur die Kongres goedgekeur is, maar wette wat gebaseer is op geregtigheid en die mensdom, sal van tyd tot tyd gemaak word om te verhoed dat hulle onreg aangedoen word en om vrede en vriendskap met hulle te behou. ...
Daar mag geen slawerny of onwillekeurige diensbaarheid in die genoemde gebied wees nie, anders as in die straf van misdade, waarvan die party behoorlik skuldig bevind is: op voorwaarde dat elke persoon wat daarin ontsnap, van wie arbeid of diens wettiglik geëis word in in een van die oorspronklike state, kan so 'n voortvlugtige wettiglik teruggeëis en oorgedra word aan die persoon wat sy of haar diens as voormelde eis.
Ingevolge hierdie verordening is die beginsel om nuwe state gelyk te stel aan gelyke as minderwaardige status aan ouer state stewig vas te lê. Die verordeninge was 'n belangrike prestasie van die regering wat dikwels onder die wette van die Konfederasie was. Boonop het die verordeninge voorspel hoe die kwessies van territoriale uitbreiding en slawerny in die daaropvolgende jare verweef sou raak.
Die redakteurs van Encyclopaedia Britannica Hierdie artikel is onlangs hersien en bygewerk deur Jeff Wallenfeldt, bestuurder, geografie en geskiedenis.
29. Manifest Destiny
Uitbreiding weswaarts het vir baie Amerikaners in die middel van die negentiende eeu heeltemal natuurlik gelyk. Net soos die Massachusetts -puriteine wat gehoop het om 'n 'stad op 'n heuwel' te bou, het moedige pioniers geglo dat Amerika 'n goddelike verpligting het om die grense van hul edele republiek tot by die Stille Oseaan te strek. Onafhanklikheid is in die rewolusie gewen en in die oorlog van 1812 herbevestig. Die gees van nasionalisme wat die nasie in die volgende twee dekades oorval het, het meer gebied geëis. Die 'elke man is gelyk' -mentaliteit van die Jacksoniaanse era het hierdie optimisme aangewakker. Nou, met grondgebied tot by die Mississippirivier wat geëis en gevestig is en die Louisiana -aankoop verken is, het Amerikaners in massas weswaarts gegaan. Die koerantredakteur John O'Sullivan het in 1845 die term 'manifest destiny' bedink om die essensie van hierdie ingesteldheid te beskryf.
'N Simbool van Manifest Destiny, die figuur "Columbia" beweeg voor die setlaars oor die land en vervang die duisternis met lig en onkunde met die beskawing.
Die godsdienstige ywer wat deur die Tweede Groot Ontwaking ontstaan het, het nog 'n aansporing vir die rit wes geskep. Baie setlaars het inderdaad geglo dat God self die groei van die Amerikaanse nasie geseën het. Die inheemse Amerikaners is as heidene beskou. Deur die stamme te kerstaan, het Amerikaanse sendelinge geglo dat hulle siele kan red en het hulle een van die eerstes geword wat die Mississippirivier oorgesteek het.
Ekonomiese motiewe was belangrik vir ander. Die pelshandel word sedert koloniale tye oorheers deur Europese handelsondernemings. Die Duitse immigrant John Jacob Astor was een van die eerste Amerikaanse entrepreneurs wat die Europeërs uitgedaag het. Hy het in die proses 'n miljoenêr geword. Die begeerte na meer grond het aspirant -opstalters na die grens gebring. Toe goud in 1848 in Kalifornië ontdek word, het die aantal migrante nog meer toegeneem.
Die deurslaggewende geloof in Amerikaanse kulturele en rasse -meerderwaardigheid was die kern van 'n duidelike bestemming. Inheemse Amerikaners is lankal as minderwaardig beskou, en pogings om dit te "beskaaf" was wydverspreid sedert die dae van John Smith en Miles Standish. Die Hispanics wat in Texas en die winsgewende hawens van Kalifornië regeer het, word ook as 'agterlik' beskou.
In 1840 is die hele suidwestelike hoek van die Verenigde State beheer deur buitelandse moondhede (in oranje getoon), en die territoriale geskil oor die Oregon -gebied (liggroen) is nie besleg nie. Teen 1850 het die VSA beheer oor lande van die Atlantiese Oseaan tot by die Stille Oseaan, wat byna die hele kontinentale Verenigde State van Amerika dek.
Die uitbreiding van die grense van die Verenigde State was ook op baie maniere 'n kulturele oorlog. Die begeerte van die Suidlanders om meer lande te vind wat geskik is vir katoenverbouing, sou uiteindelik slawerny na hierdie streke versprei. Noord van die Mason-Dixon-lyn was baie burgers diep bekommerd oor die toevoeging van nog slawestate. Manifestiese lot het betrekking op kwessies van godsdiens, geld, ras, patriotisme en moraliteit. Dit het in die 1840's gebots toe 'n werklik groot drama van streekskonflik begin afspeel het.
Is 'n franchise reg vir u?
Dink na oor hoeveel geld u moet belê, u vermoëns en u doelwitte voordat u in 'n spesifieke franchise -stelsel belê. Wees brutaal eerlik.
Jou belegging
- Hoeveel geld moet jy belê?
- Hoeveel geld kan u bekostig om te verloor?
- Koop u die franchise alleen of saam met vennote?
- Benodig u finansiering? Waar sal jy dit kry? Wat is u kredietgradering en kredietgradering?
- Het u spaargeld of bykomende inkomste om van te lewe totdat u franchise oopmaak en u hoop winsgewend word?
Jou vermoëns
- Vereis die franchise tegniese ervaring of spesiale opleiding of opleiding - byvoorbeeld motorherstelwerk, huis- en kantoorversiering of belastingvoorbereiding?
- Watter spesiale vaardighede kan u vir hierdie onderneming bring?
- Watter ervaring het u as sake -eienaar of bestuurder?
Jou doelwitte
- Wat is u redes om 'n spesifieke franchise te koop?
- Het u 'n spesifieke minimum jaarlikse inkomste nodig?
- Wil u in 'n spesifieke veld werk?
- Stel u belang in kleinhandelverkope of om 'n diens te lewer?
- Hoeveel ure kan jy werk? Hoeveel is jy bereid om te werk?
- Is u van plan om die onderneming self te bestuur of 'n bestuurder aan te stel?
- Sal franchise -eienaarskap u belangrikste bron van inkomste wees of 'n aanvulling op u huidige inkomste?
- Is u hierin op die lang termyn?
- Wil u verskeie afsetpunte besit?
- Is u bereid om die franchisegever u baas te wees?
Onder die ISO -klassifikasiestelsel word vragmotors in grootteklasse ingedeel op grond van hul bruto voertuiggewig (GVW). Die GVW word deur die vervaardiger bepaal. Dit is die gewig van die vragmotor wanneer dit tot sy kapasiteit met mense en vrag gelaai word. Afhangende van sy GVW, kan 'n vragmotor as lig, medium, swaar of ekstra-swaar geklassifiseer word (sien die tabel hieronder). 'N Klein bakkie sal waarskynlik as 'n ligte vragmotor geklassifiseer word. 'N Groot vullisvragmotor kan aan die ander kant as 'n ekstra swaar vragmotor kwalifiseer.
Groot vragmotors het meer massa as kleintjies. As 'n groot vragmotor met 'n ander voorwerp bots, is dit meer geneig as 'n klein vragmotor om ernstige liggaamlike besering of saakbeskadiging te veroorsaak. Gestel byvoorbeeld dat 'n ekstra-swaar vulliswa en 'n bakkie met dieselfde spoed ry. Elke voertuig loop 'n stopteken en agterkant 'n privaat passasiersvoertuig. Omdat die vullisvragmotor 'n baie groter massa het as die bakkie, veroorsaak dit waarskynlik meer skade aan die motor as die bakkie.
Dit is ook waarskynlik dat 'n groot vragmotor ernstige beserings aan passasiers as 'n klein een veroorsaak. In die voorbeeld hierbo is die vullisvragmotor meer geneig as die bakkie om passasiers in die privaat passasiersvoertuig te beseer. Namate die grootte (bruto voertuiggewig) van 'n vragmotor dus toeneem, styg die tarief wat vir aanspreeklikheidsdekking gehef word, ook.
Die gewig van die trekkers word uitgedruk in bruto gesamentlike gewig (GCW). Dit is die gewig van 'n volgelaaide trekker en die sleepwa saam. Die GCW bevat die gewig van passasiers en vrag.
Hier is 'n tydlyn van die belangrikste wapenbeheerwette in Amerika
Deur hul hartseer het die studente van die Hoërskool Marjory Stoneman Douglas 'n politieke mag geword. 'N Week nadat die 19-jarige Nikolas Cruz na bewering 'n AR-15 gebruik het om 17 mense by die skool dood te skiet, het ongeveer 100 studente met wetgewers in die Florida-hoofstad vergader om te pleit vir die beheer van wapens. Hulle het ook Woensdag in die Withuis met president Trump vergader. By die organisering van die March For Our Lives kom hulle volgende maand byeen in Washington, DC
Maar met die wapenreg wat in die Amerikaanse grondwet vervat is, bly geweerregulasies 'n netelige kwessie in die VSA. Deur die geskiedenis was daar verskeie wette en hooggeregshofsake wat die tweede wysiging gevorm het. Hierdie tydlyn gee 'n uiteensetting van die belangrikste gebeurtenisse in die invloed van die federale wapenbeleid van die land.
Op 15 Desember 1791 is tien wysigings aan die Amerikaanse Grondwet en uiteindelik bekend as die Handves van Regte en mdash bekragtig. Die tweede van hulle het gesê: 'n Goed gereguleerde Militie, wat noodsaaklik is vir die veiligheid van 'n vrystaat, die reg van die mense om wapens te hou en te dra, mag nie geskend word nie. ”
Die eerste deel van die nasionale wapenbeheerwetgewing is op 26 Junie 1934 aangeneem. Die National Firearms Act (NFA) en 'n deel van president Franklin Delano Roosevelt ’s “New Deal for Crime “ & mdash was bedoel om misdade hiervan te beperk era soos die St. Valentine & rsquos Day Massacre. ”
Die NFA hef belasting op die vervaardiging, verkoop en vervoer van vuurwapens wat in die wet gelys is, waaronder haelgewere en gewere met kort loop, masjiengewere, vuurwapendempers en knaldempers. Weens grondwetlike gebreke is die NFA verskeie kere gewysig. Die belasting van $ 200, wat hoog was vir die era, is ingestel om die oordrag van hierdie wapens te beperk.
Die Federale Vuurwapenwet (FFA) van 1938 het geweervervaardigers, invoerders en handelaars vereis om 'n federale vuurwapenlisensie te bekom. Dit het ook 'n groep mense gedefinieer, insluitend veroordeelde misdadigers, wat nie wapens kon koop nie, en het opdrag gegee dat geweerverkopers kliënte rekords hou. Die FFA is in 1968 deur die Gun Control Act (GCA) herroep, hoewel baie van die bepalings daarvan deur die GCA heraangestel is.
In 1939 het die Amerikaanse hooggeregshof die saak aangehoor Verenigde State v. Miller, beslis dat die Kongres deur die National Firearms Act van 1934 die tussenstate verkoop van 'n kort vatgeweer kan reguleer. Die hof verklaar dat daar geen bewyse is dat 'n afgesaagde haelgeweer 'n redelike verband het met die behoud of doeltreffendheid van 'n goed gereguleerde burgermag nie, en daarom kan ons nie sê dat die tweede wysiging die reg om te behou en dra so 'n instrument. ”
Na die sluipmoorde op president John F. Kennedy, die prokureur -generaal en die Amerikaanse senator Robert F. Kennedy en dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., het president Lyndon B. Johnson aangedring op die goedkeuring van die Gun Control Act van 1968. Die GCA herroep en het die FFA vervang, titel II van die NFA opgedateer om grondwetlike kwessies op te los, taal bygevoeg oor “ vernietigende toestelle ” (soos bomme, myne en granate) en die definisie van “ masjiengeweer uitgebrei. ”
Die wetsontwerp verbied in die algemeen die invoer van gewere wat geen sportdoeleindes het nie, en ouderdomsbeperkings vir die aankoop van handwapens (geweer eienaars moes 21 wees), verbode misdadigers, geestesongesteldes en ander mense om wapens te koop, vereis dat alle vervaardigde of ingevoerde gewere het 'n reeksnommer, en volgens die ATF 'n strenger lisensiëring en regulering op die vuurwapenbedryf opgelê. ”
In 1986 is die Wet op die beskerming van vuurwapeneienaars deur die kongres goedgekeur. Die wet het hoofsaaklik beskerming vir wapeneienaars ingestel en 'n nasionale register van handelaarsrekords verbied, ATF -inspeksies tot een keer per jaar beperk (tensy daar veelvuldige oortredings is), versag wat gedefinieer word as “betrokkenheid in die besigheid en#8221 van die verkoop van vuurwapens, en sodat gelisensieerde handelaars vuurwapens kan verkoop by “geweerskoue en#8221 in hul staat. Dit het ook die regulasies vir die verkoop en oordrag van ammunisie losgemaak.
Die wetsontwerp het ook 'n paar geweerbeheermaatreëls gekodifiseer, insluitend die uitbreiding van die GCA om burgerlike eienaarskap of oordrag van masjiengewere wat na 19 Mei 1986 gemaak is, te verbied en die herdefiniëring van#8220silencer ” om dele in te sluit wat bedoel is om geluiddempers te maak.
Die wet op die voorkoming van geweld teen gewere van 1993 van Brady is vernoem na die perssekretaris van die Withuis, James Brady, wat permanent ongeskik was weens 'n besering wat hy opgedoen het tydens 'n poging om president Ronald Reagan te vermoor. (Brady is in 2014 oorlede). Dit is deur president Bill Clinton onderteken. Die wet, wat die GCA wysig, vereis dat agtergrondkontroles voltooi moet word voordat 'n geweer by 'n gelisensieerde handelaar, vervaardiger of invoerder gekoop word. Dit het die National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) ingestel, wat deur die FBI onderhou word.
Die onderafdeling getiteld Wet op die beskerming van openbare veiligheid en ontspanning op vuurwapens, is ingesluit in die ingrypende en omstrede Wet op die Beheer van Wet op die Handhawing van Wet en Wetstoepassing. Dit staan bekend as die verbod op aanvalswapens en 'n tydelike verbod wat van September 1994 tot September 2004 van krag is. Verskeie pogings om die verbod te hernu, het misluk.
Die bepalings van die wetsontwerp verbied die vermoë om 'n semi -outomatiese aanvalswapen te vervaardig, oor te dra of te besit, tensy dit op federale wet op die datum van die inwerkingtreding van hierdie subartikel onwettig besit is. ” Negentien militêre -styl of “copy-cat ” aanvalswapens en mdash insluitend AR-15's, TEC-9's, MAC-10s, ens. & mdash mag nie vervaardig of verkoop word nie. Dit het ook 'n aantal ammunisieblaaie van meer as tien rondes met 'n hoë kapasiteit verbied, volgens 'n Amerikaanse feiteblad van die Amerikaanse departement van justisie.
Die Tiahrt-wysiging, voorgestel deur Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), Het die ATF verbied om inligting in die openbaar bekend te maak wat toon waar misdadigers hul vuurwapens gekoop het en het bepaal dat slegs wetstoepassers of aanklaers toegang tot sulke inligting kon kry.
Die wet beskerm kleinhandelaars effektief teen regsgedinge, akademiese studie en openbare ondersoek, en#8221 Die Washington Post geskryf in 2010. Dit hou ook die kollig van die verhouding tussen skelm geweerhandelaars en die swart mark in vuurwapens. ”
Daar is pogings aangewend om hierdie wysiging te herroep.
In 2005 is die Wet op die Beskerming van Wettige Wapenhandel onderteken deur president George W. Bush om te verhoed dat geweervervaardigers in federale of staatsbenamings genoem word deur diegene wat slagoffers was van misdade waarby gewere gemaak is deur die onderneming.
Die eerste bepaling van hierdie wet is om oorsake van aksie teen vervaardigers, verspreiders, handelaars en invoerders van vuurwapens of ammunisieprodukte en hul handelsverenigings te verbied vir die skade wat uitsluitlik veroorsaak word deur die kriminele of onwettige misbruik van vuurwapenprodukte of ammunisie produkte deur ander as die produk soos ontwerp en bedoel funksioneer. ” Dit het ook hangende sake op 26 Oktober 2005 van die hand gewys.
District of Columbia v. Heller in wese 'n presedent van byna 70 jaar verander deur Miller in 1939. Terwyl die Miller uitspraak gefokus op die “ goed gereguleerde milisie ” gedeelte van die tweede wysiging (bekend as die “ kollektiewe regte teorie ” en verwys na 'n staat se reg om homself te verdedig), Heller gefokus op die individuele reg om 'n vuurwapen te besit wat nie verband hou met diens in 'n burgermag nie. ”
Heller het die grondwetlikheid van 'n 32-jarige verbod op vuurwapens in Washington, DC betwis en bevind: Die verbod op handwapen en die sneller-sluitvereiste (soos toegepas op selfverdediging) skend die tweede wysiging. ”
Dit het egter nie ander wapenbeheerbepalings tot niet gemaak nie. Die hof se mening moet nie geneem word om twyfel te werp oor jarelange verbod op die besit van vuurwapens deur misdadigers en geestesongesteldes nie, of wette wat die vervoer van vuurwapens op sensitiewe plekke soos skole en regeringsgeboue verbied, of wette wat voorwaardes en kwalifikasies stel oor die kommersiële verkoop van wapens, lui die uitspraak.
Regstelling: Die oorspronklike weergawe van hierdie verhaal het 'n wanindruk in wat gebeur het met perssekretaris van die Withuis, James Brady, tydens 'n poging om president Ronald Reagan te vermoor. Hy is beseer en permanent gestremd, maar hy is nie dood tydens die aanval nie. Hy is in 2014 oorlede.
Voordat u na 'n analise gaan, is dit die moeite werd om die metodologie agter die ontwerp van hierdie grafika aan te raak.
Hierdie kaart beklemtoon duisende van die gewildste webwerwe ter wêreld deur dit as '#8220lande' te visualiseer. handelsplatform, ens.).
Die gekleurde rande verteenwoordig 'n webwerf se logo of gebruikerskoppelvlak. Wat skaal betref, is die oppervlakte van elke webwerf gebaseer op die gemiddelde Alexa -webverkeerranglys. Die gegewens is 'n jaargemiddelde, gemeet van Januarie 2020 tot Januarie 2021. Langs die grense van die kaart vind u bykomende inligting, van ranglyste van sosiale mediaverbruik tot 'n mini-kaart van gemiddelde aflaaisnelhede oor die hele wêreld. Volgens die ontwerper Martin Vargic het hierdie kaart ongeveer 'n jaar geneem om te voltooi. William McKinley: Die verkryging van die Filippyne Deur 'n protokol wat op 12 Augustus 1898 in Washington onderteken is. . . daar is ooreengekom dat die Verenigde State en Spanje elk nie meer as vyf kommissarisse sou aanstel om vredesbehandeling aan te stel nie, en dat die so aangestelde kommissarisse nie later nie as 1 Oktober 1898 in Parys sou vergader en voortgaan met die onderhandeling en sluiting van 'n verdrag van vrede, watter verdrag onderhewig moet wees aan bekragtiging volgens die onderskeie grondwetlike vorme van die twee lande. Om hierdie bepaling in werking te stel, het ek u aangestel as kommissarisse van die Verenigde State om met kommissarisse van Spanje te vergader en te vergader. Hierdie eise is deur Spanje toegegee, en u toegewing is, soos u sal sien, plegtig opgeteken in die protokol van die 12de Augustus. . . . Dit is my wens dat die doel en die gees waarmee die Verenigde State die onwelkome noodsaaklikheid van oorlog deurlopend in die oog gehou het gedurende die hele onderhandelinge wat aan die Kommissie toevertrou is. Ons het slegs wapens aangeneem in gehoorsaamheid aan die voorskrifte van die mensdom en die nakoming van hoë openbare en morele verpligtinge. Ons het nie 'n ontwerp van verheerliking gehad nie en geen ambisie om te verower nie. Deur die lang loop van herhaalde vertoë wat die stryd voorafgegaan het en wat daarop gemik was om die stryd af te weer, en in die finale arbitrasie van geweld, is hierdie land slegs aangespoor deur die doel om ernstige ongeregtighede te verlig en om die bestaande toestande wat die rustigheid versteur het, te verwyder, wat die morele gevoel van die mensdom, en wat nie meer verduur kon word nie. Dit is my opregte wens dat die Verenigde State dieselfde vredesreël volg wat die Verenigde State gelei het om oorlog te ondergaan. Dit behoort net so nougeset en grootmoedig te wees in die slotskikking as wat dit regverdig en menslik was in die oorspronklike optrede. Die glans en die morele sterkte verbonde aan 'n saak wat met vertroue op die oordeelkundige oordeel van die wêreld kan berus, mag onder geen illusie van die uur gedemp word deur bybedoelings wat ons kan verlei tot buitensporige eise of tot 'n avontuurlike vertrek op onbepaalde paden . Daar word geglo dat die ware glorie en die volgehoue belange van die land sekerlik gedien sal word as 'n onselfsugtige plig wat pligsgetrou aanvaar word en 'n seëntriomf met eerbaarheid bewerkstellig word, gekroon word deur so 'n voorbeeld van matigheid, terughoudendheid en redelikheid in oorwinning as die beste mededinging met die tradisies en karakter van ons verligte republiek. Ons doel met die aanpassing van vrede moet meer gerig wees op blywende resultate en op die bereiking van die algemene welstand onder die eise van die beskawing, eerder as op ambisieuse ontwerpe. Die bepalings van die protokol is op hierdie oorweging omskryf. Die verlating van die Westelike Halfrond deur Spanje was 'n noodsaaklike noodsaaklikheid. By die voorlegging van hierdie vereiste het ons slegs 'n plig vervul wat algemeen erken word. It involves no ungenerous reference to our recent foe, but simply a recognition of the plain teachings of history, to say that it was not compatible with the assurance of permanent peace on and near our own territory that the Spanish flag should remain on this side of the sea. This lesson of events and of reason left no alternative as to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the other islands belonging to Spain in this hemisphere. The Philippines stand upon a different basis. It is nonetheless true, however, that without any original thought of complete or even partial acquisition, the presence and success of our arms at Manila imposes upon us obligations which we cannot disregard. The march of events rules and overrules human action. Avowing unreservedly the purpose which has animated all our effort, and still solicitous to adhere to it, we cannot be unmindful that, without any desire or design on our part, the war has brought us new duties and responsibilities which we must meet and discharge as becomes a great nation on whose growth and career from the beginning the ruler of nations has plainly written the high command and pledge of civilization. Incidental to our tenure in the Philippines is the commercial opportunity to which American statesmanship cannot be indifferent. It is just to use every legitimate means for the enlargement of American trade but we seek no advantages in the Orient which are not common to all. Asking only the open door for ourselves, we are ready to accord the open door to others. The commercial opportunity which is naturally and inevitably associated with this new opening depends less on large territorial possession than upon an adequate commercial basis and upon broad and equal privileges. . . . In view of what has been stated, the United States cannot accept less than the cession in full right and sovereignty of the island of Luzon. It is desirable, however, that the United States shall acquire the right of entry for vessels and merchandise belonging to citizens of the United States into such ports of the Philippines as are not ceded to the United States upon terms of equal favor with Spanish ships and merchandise, both in relation to port and customs charges and rates of trade and commerce, together with other rights of protection and trade accorded to citizens of one country within the territory of another. You are therefore instructed to demand such concession, agreeing on your part that Spain shall have similar rights as to her subjects and vessels in the ports of any territory in the Philippines ceded to the United States. The centre of the conterminous United States is a great sprawling interior lowland, reaching from the ancient shield of central Canada on the north to the Gulf of Mexico on the south. To east and west this lowland rises, first gradually and then abruptly, to mountain ranges that divide it from the sea on both sides. The two mountain systems differ drastically. The Appalachian Mountains on the east are low, almost unbroken, and in the main set well back from the Atlantic. From New York to the Mexican border stretches the low Coastal Plain, which faces the ocean along a swampy, convoluted coast. The gently sloping surface of the plain extends out beneath the sea, where it forms the continental shelf, which, although submerged beneath shallow ocean water, is geologically identical to the Coastal Plain. Southward the plain grows wider, swinging westward in Georgia and Alabama to truncate the Appalachians along their southern extremity and separate the interior lowland from the Gulf. West of the Central Lowland is the mighty Cordillera, part of a global mountain system that rings the Pacific basin. The Cordillera encompasses fully one-third of the United States, with an internal variety commensurate with its size. At its eastern margin lie the Rocky Mountains, a high, diverse, and discontinuous chain that stretches all the way from New Mexico to the Canadian border. The Cordillera’s western edge is a Pacific coastal chain of rugged mountains and inland valleys, the whole rising spectacularly from the sea without benefit of a coastal plain. Pent between the Rockies and the Pacific chain is a vast intermontane complex of basins, plateaus, and isolated ranges so large and remarkable that they merit recognition as a region separate from the Cordillera itself. These regions—the Interior Lowlands and their upland fringes, the Appalachian Mountain system, the Atlantic Plain, the Western Cordillera, and the Western Intermontane Region—are so various that they require further division into 24 major subregions, or provinces. The United States has 120.5 guns per 100 people, or about 393,347,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America’s pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias that gun violence would be reduced that gun restrictions have always existed and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. Opponents say that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Guns in Colonial and Revolutionary America Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans regulating the storage of gun powder in homes banning loaded guns in Boston houses and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned. [1][2] Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. [105] Several colonies’ gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. [105] Some laws, including in Connecticut (1643) and at least five other colonies, required “at least one adult man in every house to carry a gun to church or other public meetings” in order to protect against attacks by Native Americans prevent theft of firearms from unattended homes and, as a 1743 South Carolina law stated, safeguard against “insurrections and other wicked attempts of Negroes and other Slaves.” [105] Other laws required immigrants to own guns in order to immigrate or own land. [105] The Second Amendment of the US Constitution was ratified on Dec. 15, 1791. The notes from the Constitutional Convention do not mention an individual right to a gun for self-defense. [106] Some historians suggest that the idea of an individual versus a collective right would not have occurred to the Founding Fathers because the two were intertwined and inseparable: there was an individual right in order to fulfill the collective right of serving in the militia. [105][106] Although guns were common in colonial and revolutionary America, so were gun restrictions. Laws included banning the sale of guns to Native Americans (though colonists frequently traded guns with Native Americans for goods such as corn and fur) banning indentured servants (mainly the Irish) and slaves from owning guns and exempting a variety of professions from owning guns (including doctors, school masters, lawyers, and millers). [105] A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register his gun ownership on public records. [101] Many Americans owned hunting rifles or pistols instead of proper military guns, and even though the penalty fines were high (over $9,000 in 2014 dollars), they were levied inconsistently and the public largely ignored the law. [105][106] State Gun Laws: Slave Codes and the “Wild West” From the 1700s through the 1800s, so-called “slave codes” and, after slavery was abolished in 1865, “black codes” (and, still later, “Jim Crow” laws) prohibited black people from owning guns and laws allowing the ownership of guns frequently specified “free white men.” [98] For example, an 1833 Georgia law stated, “it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever… that the free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes, and that the fire arm so found in the possession of said free person of colour, shall be exposed for public sale.” [107] Despite images of the “Wild West” from movies, cities in the frontier often required visitors to check their guns with the sheriff before entering the town. [108] In Oct. 1876, Deadwood, Dakota Territory passed a law stating that no one could fire a gun without the mayor’s consent. [109] A sign in Dodge City, Kansas in 1879 read, “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.” [108] The first law passed in Dodge City was a gun control law that read “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” [108] Federal Gun Laws in the 1900s The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre on Feb. 14, 1929 in Chicago resulted in the deaths of seven gangsters associated with “Bugs” Moran (an enemy of Al Capone) and set off a series of debates and laws to ban machine guns. [110][111] Originally enacted in 1934 in response to mafia crimes, the National Firearms Act (NFA) imposes a $200 tax and a registration requirement on the making and transfer of certain guns, including shotguns and rifles with barrels shorter than 18 inches (“short-barreled”), machine guns, firearm mufflers and silencers, and specific firearms labeled as “any other weapons” by the NFA. [112][113] Most guns are excluded from the Act. The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 made it illegal to sell guns to certain people (including convicted felons) and required federal firearms licensees (FFLs people who are licensed by the federal government to sell firearms) to maintain customer records. [114] This Act was overturned by the 1968 Gun Control Act. In 1968 the National Firearms Act was revised to address constitutionality concerns brought up by Haynes v. US (1968), namely that unregistered firearms already in possession of the owner do not have to be registered, and information obtained from NFA applications and registrations cannot be used as evidence in a criminal trial when the crime occurred before or during the filing of the paperwork. [112] On Oct. 22, 1968, prompted by the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy (1963), Malcolm X (1965), Martin Luther King, Jr. (1968), and Robert F. Kennedy (1968), as well as the 1966 University of Texas mass shooting, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) into law. [115] The GCA regulates interstate gun commerce, prohibiting interstate transfer unless completed among licensed manufacturers, importers, and dealers, and restricts gun ownership. [114] Die Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) revised prior legislation once again. [112][113] The Act, among other revisions to prior laws, allowed gun dealers to sell guns away from the address listed on their license limited the number of inspections the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) could perform without a warrant prevented the federal government from maintaining a database of gun dealer records and removed the requirement that gun dealers keep track of ammunition sales. [114] Die Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (also called the Brady Act) was signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993 and required a five-day waiting period for a licensed seller to hand over a gun to an unlicensed person in states without an alternate background check system. [116] The five-day waiting period has since been replaced by an instant background check system that can take up to three days if there is an inconsistency or more information is needed to complete the sale. [114] Gun owners who have a federal firearms license or a state-issued permit are exempt from the waiting period. [114] The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act), part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Sep. 13, 1994. The ban outlawed 19 models of semi-automatic assault weapons by name and others by “military features,” as well as large-capacity magazines manufactured after the law’s enactment. [114] The ban expired on Sep. 13, 2004 and was not renewed due in part to NRA lobbying efforts. [114][117] Federal and State Gun Laws in the 2000s Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 was enacted on Oct. 26 by President George W. Bush and gives broad civil liability immunity to firearms manufacturers so they cannot be sued by a gun death victim’s family. [114][118] The Child Safety Lock Act requires that all handguns be sold with a “secure gun storage or safety device.” [119] Die National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 was enacted as a condition of the Brady Act and provides incentives to states (including grants from the Attorney General) for them to provide information to NICS including information on people who are prohibited from purchasing firearms. [114] The NICS was implemented on Nov. 30, 1998 and later amended on Jan. 8, 2008 in response to the Apr. 16, 2007 Virginia Tech University shooting so that the Attorney General could more easily acquire information pertinent to background checks such as disqualifying mental conditions. [120] On Jan. 5, 2016, President Obama announced new executive actions on gun control. His measures take effect immediately and include: an update and expansion of background checks (closing the “gun show loophole”) the addition of 200 ATF agents increased mental health care funding $4 million and personnel to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (used to link crimes in one jurisdiction to ballistics evidence in another) creating an Internet Investigations Center to track illegal online gun trafficking a new Department of Health and Human Services rule saying that it is not a HIPAA violation to report mental health information to the background check system a new requirement to report gun thefts new research funding for gun safety technologies and more funding to train law enforcement officers on preventing gun casualties in domestic violence cases. [142][143] In addition to federal gun laws, each state has its own set of gun laws ranging from California with the most restrictive gun laws in the country to Arizona with the most lenient, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign’s � State Scorecard.” [121] . 43 of 50 states have a “right to bear arms” clause in their state constitutions. [101] The most common state gun control laws include background checks, waiting periods, and registration requirements to purchase or sell guns. [121][122] Most states prevent carrying guns, including people with a concealed carry permit, on K-12 school grounds and many states prevent carrying on college campuses. [121][122] Some states ban assault weapons. [121][122] Gun rights laws include concealed and open carry permits, as well as allowing gun carry in usually restricted areas (such as bars, K-12 schools, state parks, and parking areas). [121][122] Many states have “shoot first” (also called “stand your ground”) laws. [121][122] Open carry of handguns is generally allowed in most states (though a permit may be required). [121][122] Collective v. Individual Right: Guns and the Supreme Court Until 2008, the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld a collective right (that the right to own guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia) view of the Second Amendment, concluding that the states may form militias and regulate guns. [47] The first time the Court upheld an individual rights interpretation (that individuals have a Constitutional right to own a gun regardless of militia service) of the Second Amendment was the June 26, 2008 US Supreme Court ruling in DC v. Heller. The Court stated that the right could be limited: “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited… Thus we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.” [1][3] The US Supreme Court ruled on June 28, 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago that the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Due Process Clause, includes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and, thus, the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government, effectively extending the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment to the states. [123] On June 27, 2016, in Voisine v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled (6-2) that someone convicted of “recklessly” committing a violent domestic assault can be disqualified from owning a gun under the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment to the 1968 Gun Control Act. Associate Justice Elena Kagan, JD, writing the majority opinion, stated: “Congress enacted §922(g)(9) [the Lautenberg Amendment] in 1996 to bar those domestic abusers convicted of garden-variety assault or battery misdemeanors–just like those convicted of felonies–from owning guns.” [150] [151] [152] [153] On Feb. 20, 2018, the US Supreme Court indicated it would not hear an appeal to California’s 10-day waiting period for gun buyers, thus leaving the waiting period in place. [156] Justice Clarence Thomas said the Court should have heard the challenge, stating “The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan,” in reference to the Court not hearing a major Second Amendment case since 2010. [156] On Apr. 27, 2020, the US Supreme Court indicated it would not rule on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. et al., v. City of New York. The case revolved around a New York City regulation that prevented residents with “premises licenses” to take their guns to second homes and shooting ranges outside of New York City. The city repealed the regulation when the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The ruling would have been the first on the scope of the Second Amendment in almost a decade. [168] On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear almost a dozen cases appealing gun control laws, leaving the laws in place. In question were laws in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey that require residents to meet specific criteria to obtain a permit to carry outside of their homes. Also in question was a Massachusetts law banning certain semiautomatic guns and high-capacity magazines and a California law requiring microstamping technology and design features. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that some of the cases should have been heard by the Supreme Court. [173] The National Rifle Association (NRA) The National Rifle Association calls itself “America’s longest-standing civil rights organization.” [124] Granted charter on Nov. 17, 1871 in New York, Civil War Union veterans Colonel William C. Church and General George Wingate founded the NRA to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis” to improve the marksmanship of Union troops. [125] General Ambrose Burnside, governor of Rhode Island (1866 to 1869) and US Senator (Mar. 4, 1875 to Sep. 13, 1881), was the first president. [125][126] Over 100 years later, in 1977, in what is known as the “Revolt at Cincinnati,” new leadership changed the bylaws to make the protection of the Second Amendment right to bear arms the primary focus (ousting the focus on sportsmanship). [127][128] The group lobbied to disassemble the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the NRA alleged the Act gave power to the ATF that was abused), which they accomplished in 1986 with the Firearms Owners Protection Act. [127] In 1993 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) funded a study completed by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor in the Home,” which found that keeping a gun at home increased the risk of homicide. [129][130][131] The NRA accused the CDC of “promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated,” and argued that government funding should not be available to politically motivated studies. [129][130][131] The NRA notched a victory when Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, which deducted $2.6 billion from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount of its gun research program, and restricted CDC (and, later, NIH) gun research. [129][130][131] The amendment stated that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” [129][130][131] The admonition effectively stopped all federal gun research because, as Kellerman stated, “[p]recisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency’s funding to find out.” [130] Jay Dickey (R-AR), now retired from Congress, was the author of the Dickey Amendment and has since stated that he no longer supports the amendment: “I wish we had started the proper research and kept it going all this time… I have regrets.” [144] As of Jan. 2013, the NRA had approximately 3 million members, though estimates have varied from 2.6 million to 5 million members. [132] In 2013 the NRA spending budget was $290.6 million. [133] The NRA-ILA actively lobbies against universal checks and registration, “large” magazine and “assault weapons” bans, requiring smart gun features, ballistic fingerprinting, firearm traces, and prohibiting people on the terrorist watchlist from owning guns and in favor of self-defense (stand your ground) laws. [134] In 2014 the NRA and NRA-ILA spent $3.36 million on lobbying activity aimed primarily at Congress but also the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Forest Service. [135] On Aug. 6, 2020, New York Attorney General Letitia James, JD, MPA, filed a lawsuit arguing for the dissolution of the NRA and the removal of CEO Wayne LaPierre. James has jurisdiction over the NRA because the organization has been registered as a non-profit in New York for 148 years. The lawsuit argues that the NRA has displayed corruption, including ill-gotten funds, and misspending, including inflated salaries that diverted $64 million from the NRA’s charitable mission to fund extravagant lifestyles. James also requested that LaPierre and three top executives repay NRA members. The lawsuit accuses LaPierre of arranging contracts for himself with the NRA worth $17 million without NRA board approval and of not reporting hundreds of thousands in income to the IRS. [177] [178] Also on Aug. 6, 2020, DC District Attorney General Karl A. Racine, JD, filed a separate lawsuit against the NRA Foundation, alleging that it is not operating independently of the NRA as required by law, but instead the NRA Foundation regularly loaned money to the NRA to address deficits. [177] [178] The NRA stated it would countersue New York Attorney General James for “an unconstitutional, premeditated attack aiming to dismantle and destroy the NRA.” [177] [178] On Jan. 15, 2021, the NRA filed for bankruptcy, and announced plans to leave New York and move to Texas where the organization will reincorporate. New York Attorney General Letitia James called the move a “tactic to evade accountability and my office’s oversight.” NRA CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne Lapierre stated, “The NRA is pursuing reincorporating in a state that values the contributions of the NRA, celebrates our law-abiding members, and will join us as a partner in upholding constitutional freedom.” On May 11, 2021, a federal judge dismissed the bankruptcy filing, allowing legal proceedings against the NRA to proceed in New York. [180] [183] The Gun Control Lobby The start of the modern gun control movement is largely attributed to Mark Borinsky, PhD, who founded the National Center to Control Handguns (NCCH) in 1974. [136] After being the victim of an armed robbery, Borinsky looked for a gun control group to join but found none, founded NCCH, and worked to grow the organization with Edward O. Welles, a retired CIA officer, and N.T. “Pete” Shields, a Du Pont executive whose son was shot and killed in 1975. [136] In 2001, after a few name changes, the National Center to Control Handguns (NCCH) was renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its sister organization, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, was renamed the Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, though they are often referred to collectively as the Brady Campaign. [137] The groups were named for Jim Brady, a press secretary to President Ronald Reagan who was shot and permanently disabled on Mar. 30, 1981 during an assassination attempt on the President. [137] The 2014 gun control lobby was composed of Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Sandy Hook Promise, Americans for Responsible Solutions, and Violence Policy Center. [138] Collectively, these groups spent $1.94 million in 2014, primarily aimed at Congress but also the Executive Office of the President, the Vice President, the White House, Department of Justice, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. [138] The most-recently available total annual spending budgets for gun control groups were $13.7 million collectively (4.7% of the NRA’s 2013 budget): including Everytown for Gun Safety ($4.7 million in 2012) the Brady Campaign ($2.7 million in 2012) the Brady Center ($3.1 million in 2010) Coalition to Stop Gun Violence ($308,761 in 2011) Sandy Hook Promise ($2.2 million in 2013) and the Violence Policy Center ($750,311 in 2012). [133] The Current Gun Control Debate Largely, the current public gun control debate in the United States occurs after a major mass shooting. There were at least 126 mass shootings between Jan. 2000 and July 2014. [139][140] Proponents of more gun control often want more laws to try to prevent the mass shootings and call for smart gun laws, background checks, and more protections against the mentally ill buying guns. Opponents of more gun laws accuse proponents of using a tragedy to further a lost cause, stating that more laws would not have prevented the shootings. A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew Research Center survey found 52% of Americans believe the right to own guns should be protected while 46% believe gun ownership should be controlled, a switch from 1993 when 34% wanted gun rights protected and 57% wanted gun ownership controlled. [141] According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll taken shortly after the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, 66% of American voters support stricter gun control laws. [155] On Dec. 18, 2018, the US Justice Department announced a new rule banning bump stocks, a gun attachment that allows a semi-automatic gun to fire rapidly like an automatic weapon. As of Mar. 26, 2019, the new rule classifies bump stocks as machine guns, which bans them nationwide under existing gun control laws. [161] A May 2019 Quinnipiac poll found that, while 61% of Americans are in favor of stricter gun laws, there were differences in support between political parties: 91% of Democrats, 59% of Independents, and 32% of Republicans supported more gun laws. [165] On Apr. 8, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland outlined five actions to be taken by the Biden Administration to curb gun violence: 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic The 2020 COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic caused gun sales to rise, and resulted in a conflict between the NRA and several states when gun and ammo shops were not included as essential businesses during stay-at-home orders. [166] A significant portion of schools in the US were temporarily closed in Mar. 2020 to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (coronavirus). That month was the first March to pass without a school shooting since 2002, the year most 2020 high school seniors were born. [167] The FBI conducted over 3.7 million gun background checks in Mar. 2020 for the sale of 1.9 million guns in the US, the second highest number of gun sales in one month after Jan. 2013, which saw gun sales reach 2 million following President Obama’s reelection and the Dec. 14, 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The FBI conducted over 2.9 million background checks in Apr. 2020, over 3.1 million in May 2020, over 3.9 million in June 2020 (an all-time high), and over 3.6 million in July 2020 as the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic continued. [169][170][174][175] The FBI conducted more background checks in 2020 than in any other year since 1998 when the agency began collecting data. The FBI reported 39,695,315 background checks completed in 2020, up from 2019 in which 28,369,750 million checks were performed. [181]
Redakteur se prettige feit: Kan u Visual Capitalist raaksien? Ons is tussen TechCrunch en The Guardian hierbo.
Wat was die basis vir die waardering van groot territoriale aankope deur die VSA? - Geskiedenis
Verligting
History of Gun Control
An 1879 sign in Dodge City, KS prohibiting the carrying of guns.
Source: Saul Cornell, “What the ‘Right to Bear Arms’ Really Means,” www.salon.com, Jan. 15, 2011 
Former Reagan Press Secretary Jim Brady sits by President BIll Clinton as Clinton signs the Brady Bill into law on Nov. 30, 1993
Source: Eric Bradner, “Hinckley Won’t Face New Charges in Reagan Press Secretary’s Death,” www.cnn.com, Jan 3, 2015
Open carry activists in Texas pose with rifles.
Source: TruthVoice, “Texas Set to Approve Open Carry of Pistols,” www.truthvoice.com, Apr. 19, 2015 
A portrait of General Ambrose Burnside, first president of the NRA
Source: John Hathorn, “General Ambrose E. Burnside, May 23-1924-September 13, 1881,” www.history.ncsu.edu (accessed May 11, 2015) 
Gun control activists, including Mayor Vincent Gray, march in Washington, DC
Source: Bijon Stanard, “Let’s Talk: Obama Speaks Dr. King’s March on Washington 50th Anniversary!,” letstalkbluntly.com, Aug. 8, 2013
